African Shanty-Towns: A New Form of Colonialism?
 |
In colonial days, the invading nation plundered the dominated nations without having regard to the dominated’s plight and wellbeing. But colonialism is now dead, except now a worse form of colonialism may be among us. It is worse because African governments are subjecting their own people to housing that is only fit for dogs and pigs. This internal colonialism in Africa, manifested in the sprawling slums filled with tin-roofed homes must be stopped.
The pontiff also bemoaned what he termed as “the dreadful injustice of social exclusion.” Let me reiterate that pure Capitalism cannot be advocated for Africa in the context of housing. Africa does not have mature institutions and the discipline necessary to implement pure capitalistic practices. In Africa, there is still room for social-democracy where the equitable (not equality) sharing and distribution of land, access to infrastructure and to minimum basic services should be made available to every citizen.
When the pontiff challenges, “Our world has a grave social debt toward the poor who lack access to drinking water because they are denied a life consistent with their inalienable dignity,” he is on point. And his call must be taken as a urgent clarion. In a world where 70% of the earth is surrounded by water, why should people still be going without clean water? Why should some people even be called leaders or politicians if their people squeeze themselves in overcrowded slums infested with bugs and viruses and have no access to clean and safe water? The shanty-compounds must be eliminated in Africa. At all cost!
The pontiff is calling upon the African governments to consider developing the three "Ls" — land, labour and lodging. In this article, we shall focus on lodging or housing in Kenya and Zambia, especially as it applies to the shanty-compounds. Kangemi compound in Kenya which is one of 11 slums dotting around Nairobi, East Africa's largest city, with 50,000 residents living there without basic sanitation, is not different from Zambia’s Kapoto, Kalingalinga, Mtendere, Kapisha-Soweto, Chaisa, Chibolwa, to mention but a few shanty-compounds, dotted all along Zambian towns.
Like in Kenya, in Zambia, most of the towns’ shanty-compounds comprise a maze of single-room mud structures with iron-sheet roofing or cramped, high-rise buildings. These shanty-compounds are an “injustice of urban exclusion” and should have no room in modern democratic societies. Under Part III, i.e. “protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the individual”, of the Constitution of Zambia, articles 11 and 22 come much closer to protecting people’s lodging rights, but not necessarily.
Let us review. In article 11(d), an individual is provided for the “protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation.” And under 22(b), there is provided for “the right to reside in any part of Zambia.” Thus, Zambians have the rights and freedoms to reside anywhere they want, and to own property and to be guaranteed freedom from intrusion into their privacy. However, there should also be guarantees for the protection of descent housing. In the econography of modern statism, equality of opportunities is guaranteed, but not equality of results. Granted. But this will be inimical to the developing nations where ownership of decent housing is still a struggle.
The shanty-compounds illustrate this precarious situation for Africa. Africa in general and Zambia in particular, must constitutionalize housing as a basic human right. For Zambia this process has already been initiated by the provisions cited earlier. All that is remaining is to amend the provisions to make it a violation of human rights where housing standards do not meet the minimum requirement for human decency.
Government should have the overarching right to enforce these standards. This can be done in two ways. One way of doing this is to create standards for housing in Zambia in which the current shanty-compound standards will be censured. The other way, is to privatize housing so that competent developers can provide decent housing to the poor at subsidized cost. The law should make it mandatory to own decent housing, and then to have the force to demolish those houses which do not meet the required standards. To effectuate this program, government should legitimize ownership of the houses in shanty-compounds on a compensatory model basis, in phases. This will ensure that the people will buy or rent-to-own modern houses based on the value of their slum houses, with governments and other stakeholders balancing off the rest.
Of course, as it is customary in Africa, the questions that will emerge will be funding. Let me pre-empt those who believe that funding is key to this process that it is not. Funding is just a factor, not key. But the will is. African governments have always found funds for travel, for hosting games, for extravaganzas, for all but relevant and more pressing priority. Under this proposed model, the priority is a right, and then decency, safety and the health of the citizens.
Demolition of the slum-like housing is not expensive. Any poor government on earth can do it. The people themselves who live in these death-traps will welcome this program, with some inconveniences here and there, of course. In order to create a win-win situation and to ensure that the program is self-supporting, with a minimal government and other aid, shanty-compound owners whose housing is being demolished should be employed in the demolition process (and in some cases, in the construction phase). Mild inconveniences will occur but these could be offset by effective planning and by the utilization of the right approach.
What I have tendered is a suggested scheme; there could be better and more flexible models, for sure. But what is clear is that shanty-compounds have no place in modern societies and should be eliminated. Another thing, even more importantly, living in decent housing should be a human right and this right should be enshrined in the constitution of the land.
For those who still argue for funding and inconvenience, think about it this way: How much is being lost every day because people in these squalors are dying from contagious but preventable diseases? What is more important than living in good, decent and structured housing? How much are governments (including Zambia’s) are saving by not developing the shanty-compounds? It is possible to have a shanty-compound free Zambia (Africa); it could be a complicated process but where there is a will, there is a way. Governors and the governed in Africa should not relent but disband this death-trap called shanty-compound.
As the pontiff pointed out, let us not allow the African elite to subject its precious people to shame and ignominy under bureaucratic pretext! Let us not!
By Charles Mwewa,
Author of "Zambia: Struggles of My People" and other books - www.mwewa.ca